Prospective head and neck cancer research: a four-decade bibliometric perspective

Visual analysis of image-guided radiation therapy based on bibliometrics: A review

Radiation therapy plays an important role in tumor treatment. The development of image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) technology provides a strong guarantee for precise radiation therapy of tumors. However, bibliometric studies on IGRT research have rarely been reported. This study uses literature collected from the Web of Science during 1987 to 2021 as a sample and uses the bibliometric method to reveal the current research status, hotspots, and development trends in IGRT. Based on 6407 papers published from the Web of Science during 1987 to 2021, we utilized Microsoft Excel 2007 and cite space software to perform statistical analysis and visualization of IGRT. A total of 6407 articles were included, this area of IGRT has gone through 4 stages: budding period, growth period, outbreak period, and stationary period. The research category is mainly distributed in Radiology Nuclear Medicine Medical Imaging, which intersects with the research categories of Materials, Physics, and Mathematics. Yin FF, Tanderup K, and Sonke JJ are highly productive scholars who are active in IGRT research, while Jaffray DA, van Herk M and Guckenberger M are authors with high impact in this field. The team of scholars has close cooperation within the team and weak cooperation among teams. The League of European Research Universities, University of Texas System, University of Toronto, and Princess Margaret Cancer are the main research institutions in this field. The United States has the most research literature, followed by China and Germany. Six thousand four hundred seven articles are distributed in 712 journals, and the top 3 journals are Med Phys, Int J Radiat Oncol, and Radiather Oncol. Precise registration, intelligence, magnetic resonance guidance, and deep learning are current research hotspots. These results demonstrate that the research in this field is relatively mature and fruitful in the past 35 years, providing a solid theoretical basis and practical experience for precision radiotherapy.

The International Collaboration for Research methods Development in Oncology (CReDO) workshops: shaping the future of global oncology research

Low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) have a disproportionately high burden of cancer and cancer mortality. The unique barriers to optimum cancer care in these regions necessitate context-specific research. The conduct of research in LMICs has several challenges, not least of which is a paucity of formal training in research methods. Building capacity by training early career researchers is essential to improve research output and cancer outcomes in LMICs. The International Collaboration for Research methods Development in Oncology (CReDO) workshop is an initiative by the Tata Memorial Centre and the National Cancer Grid of India to address gaps in research training and increase capacity in oncology research. Since 2015, there have been five CReDO workshops, which have trained more than 250 oncologists from India and other countries in clinical research methods and protocol development. Participants from all oncology and allied fields were represented at these workshops. Protocols developed included clinical trials, comparative effectiveness studies, health services research, and observational studies, and many of these protocols were particularly relevant to cancer management in LMICs. A follow-up of these participants in 2020 elicited an 88% response rate and showed that 42% of participants had made progress with their CReDO protocols, and 73% had initiated other research protocols and published papers. In this Policy Review, we describe the challenges to research in LMICs, as well as the evolution, structure, and impact of CReDO and other similar workshops on global oncology research.

A Bibliometric Review of Publications on Oxidative Stress and Chemobrain: 1990-2019

Oxidative stress is considered one of the possible mechanisms behind chemobrain or the cognitive dysfunction persistent after chemotherapy treatment. Breast cancer patients have reported chemobrain symptoms since the 1990s. In this present bibliometric review, we employed the VOSviewer tool to describe the existing landscape on literature concerning oxidative stress, breast cancer chemotherapies, and chemobrain. As of 2019, 8799 papers were listed in the Web of Science database, with more than 900 papers published each year. As expected, terms relating to oxidative stress, mitochondria, breast cancer, and antioxidants have occurred very often in the literature throughout the years. In recent years, there has been an increase in the occurrence of terms related to nanomedicine. Only within the last decade do the keywords 'brain', 'blood-brain barrier', and 'central nervous system' appear, reflecting an increased interest in chemobrain. China has become the most prolific producer of oxidative stress and chemotherapy related papers in the last decade followed by the USA and India. In conclusion, the subject of oxidative stress as a mechanism behind chemotherapies' toxicities is an active area of research.

The 100 most cited manuscripts in head and neck cancer: a bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to highlight the key studies that have led to the current understanding and treatment of head and neck cancer.

METHOD

The Thomson Reuters Web of Science database was used to identify relevant manuscripts. The results were ranked according to the number of citations. The 100 most cited papers were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 63 538 eligible papers were returned. The median number of citations was 626. The most cited paper compared radiotherapy with and without cetuximab (3205 citations). The New England Journal of Medicine had the most citations (23 514), and the USA had the greatest number of publications (n = 66). The most common topics of publication were the treatment (n = 45) and basic science (n = 19) of head and neck cancer, followed by the role of human papillomavirus (n = 16).

CONCLUSION

This analysis highlighted key articles that influenced head and neck cancer research and treatment. It serves as a guide as to what makes a 'citable' paper in this field.

The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Corporate interests have the potential to influence public debate and policymaking by influencing the research agenda, namely the initial step in conducting research, in which the purpose of the study is defined and the questions are framed.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a scoping review to identify and synthesize studies that explored the influence of industry sponsorship on research agendas across different fields.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase (from inception to September 2017) for all original research and systematic reviews addressing corporate influence on the research agenda. We hand searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included empirical articles and systematic reviews that explored industry sponsorship of research and its influence on research agendas in any field. There were no restrictions on study design, language, or outcomes measured. We excluded editorials, letters, and commentaries as well as articles that exclusively focused on the influence of industry sponsorship on other phases of research such as methods, results, and conclusions or if industry sponsorship was not reported separately from other funding sources.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least 2 authors independently screened and then extracted any quantitative or qualitative data from each study. We grouped studies thematically for descriptive analysis by design and outcome reported. We developed the themes inductively until all studies were accounted for. Two investigators independently rated the level of evidence of the included studies using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine ratings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 articles. Nineteen cross-sectional studies quantitatively analyzed patterns in research topics by sponsorship and showed that industry tends to prioritize lines of inquiry that focus on products, processes, or activities that can be commercialized. Seven studies analyzed internal industry documents and provided insight on the strategies the industry used to reshape entire fields of research through the prioritization of topics that supported its policy and legal positions. Ten studies used surveys and interviews to explore the researchers' experiences and perceptions of the influence of industry funding on research agendas, showing that they were generally aware of the risk that sponsorship could influence the choice of research priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

Corporate interests can drive research agendas away from questions that are the most relevant for public health. Strategies to counteract corporate influence on the research agenda are needed, including heightened disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest in published articles to allow an assessment of commercial biases. We also recommend policy actions beyond disclosure such as increasing funding for independent research and strict guidelines to regulate the interaction of research institutes with commercial entities. Public Health Implications. The influence on the research agenda has given the industry the potential to affect policymaking by influencing the type of evidence that is available and the kinds of public health solutions considered. The results of our scoping review support the need to develop strategies to counteract corporate influence on the research agenda.

Is a shift from research on individual medical error to research on health information technology underway? A 40-year analysis of publication trends in medical journals

OBJECTIVE

In 1983, McIntyre and Popper underscored the need for more openness in dealing with errors in medicine. Since then, much has been written on individual medical errors. Furthermore, at the beginning of the 21st century, researchers and medical practitioners increasingly approached individual medical errors through health information technology. Hence, the question arises whether the attention of biomedical researchers shifted from individual medical errors to health information technology. We ran a study to determine publication trends concerning individual medical errors and health information technology in medical journals over the last 40 years.

METHODS

We used the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) taxonomy in the database MEDLINE. Each year, we analyzed the percentage of relevant publications to the total number of publications in MEDLINE. The trends identified were tested for statistical significance.

RESULTS

Our analysis showed that the percentage of publications dealing with individual medical errors increased from 1976 until the beginning of the 21st century but began to drop in 2003. Both the upward and the downward trends were statistically significant (P < 0.001). A breakdown by country revealed that it was the weight of the US and British publications that determined the overall downward trend after 2003. On the other hand, the percentage of publications dealing with health information technology doubled between 2003 and 2015. The upward trend was statistically significant (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The identified trends suggest that the attention of biomedical researchers partially shifted from individual medical errors to health information technology in the USA and the UK.

Trends in Disclosures of Industry Sponsorship

PURPOSE

To examine trends in the reporting of industry funding of oncology trials by primary therapeutic intervention studied: local, targeted, or nontargeted systemic.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We reviewed oncologic trials published in 10 journals for the years 1994, 2004, and 2014 to determine the frequency of declarations of industry funding for cancer research. Logistic modeling was used to assess associations between reported industry funding and investigation characteristics, such as type of primary intervention, cancer site, study endpoint, number of participants, geographic location of corresponding author, journal impact factor, trial phase, and year of publication.

RESULTS

Reporting of industry funding increased over time (odds ratio [OR] 6.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.82-12.35). Compared with systemic trials, those investigating local therapies were less likely to report industry funding (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.14-0.15), whereas studies examining targeted interventions were more likely to report industry funding (OR 2.24; 95% CI 1.38-3.66). Studies investigating gynecologic (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.15-0.88) and pediatric cancers (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.02-0.27) were less likely to report funding by industry when compared with hematologic cancers. Phase 2 (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19-0.52) and phase 3 (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.37) studies were less likely to report industry funding than phase 1 studies. Trials investigating interventions for metastatic disease (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.73-3.79) were more likely to have reported industry funding compared with studies examining the primary/definitive disease setting.

CONCLUSION

Industry funding was reported in more than one-third of oncology trials examined in this study, and the proportion of trials reporting industry funding increased over time. The potential ramifications for these patterns of funding for the future direction of cancer research should be examined, especially given the disproportionate distribution of industry funding among therapeutic intentions, cancer types, and treatment modalities.

A descriptive and historical review of bibliometrics with applications to medical sciences

The discipline of bibliometrics involves the application of mathematical and statistical methods to scholarly publications. The first attempts at systematic data collection were provided by Alfred Lotka and Samuel Bradford, who subsequently established the foundational laws of bibliometrics. Eugene Garfield ushered in the modern era of bibliometrics with the routine use of citation analysis and systematized processing. Key elements of bibliometric analysis include database coverage, consistency and accuracy of the data, data fields, search options, and analysis and use of metrics. A number of bibliometric applications are currently being used in medical science and health care. Bibliometric parameters and indexes may be increasingly used by grant funding sources as measures of research success. Universities may build benchmarking standards from bibliometric data to determine academic achievement through promotion and tenure guidelines in the future. This article reviews the history, definition, laws, and elements of bibliometric principles and provides examples of bibliometric applications to the broader health care community. To accomplish this, the Medline (1966-2014) and Web of Science (1945-2014) databases were searched to identify relevant articles; select articles were also cross-referenced. Articles selected were those that provided background, history, descriptive analysis, and application of bibliometric principles and metrics to medical science and health care. No attempt was made to cover all areas exhaustively; rather, key articles were chosen that illustrate bibliometric concepts and enhance the reader's knowledge. It is important that faculty and researchers understand the limitations and appropriate uses of bibliometric data. Bibliometrics has considerable potential as a research area for health care scientists and practitioners that can be used to discover new information about academic trends, pharmacotherapy, disease, and broader health sciences trends.

[Trends and evolutions of French breast cancer research: a bibliometric study]

This article presents a bibliometric study carried out in order to describe the trends and evolutions of French breast cancer research from 2003 to 2013. The results show an increase in the number of publications, especially international publications coordinated by non-French institutions. The most visible topics, in terms of number of publications by keywords, are related to biology, clinical trials and genetics. Most publications are written by authors affiliated to comprehensive cancer centres, followed by universities, research centres, university hospitals and governmental agencies. The importance of publications by topic varies throughout the years: there has been an increase of the number of publications related to targeted therapies or genomics. The importance of institutions or country affiliation of authors varies with the topics. This study, especially the analysis by keywords, enables the coordinators of research programs to identify the predominant actors and themes.

Does Cancer Literature Reflect Multidisciplinary Practice? A Systematic Review of Oncology Studies in the Medical Literature Over a 20-Year Period

PURPOSE

Quality cancer care is best delivered through a multidisciplinary approach requiring awareness of current evidence for all oncologic specialties. The highest impact journals often disseminate such information, so the distribution and characteristics of oncology studies by primary intervention (local therapies, systemic therapies, and targeted agents) were evaluated in 10 high-impact journals over a 20-year period.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Articles published in 1994, 2004, and 2014 in New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Annals of Oncology, Radiotherapy and Oncology, International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, Annals of Surgical Oncology, and European Journal of Surgical Oncology were identified. Included studies were prospectively conducted and evaluated a therapeutic intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 960 studies were included: 240 (25%) investigated local therapies, 551 (57.4%) investigated systemic therapies, and 169 (17.6%) investigated targeted therapies. More local therapy trials (n=185 [77.1%]) evaluated definitive, primary treatment than systemic (n=178 [32.3%]) or targeted therapy trials (n=38 [22.5%]; P<.001). Local therapy trials (n=16 [6.7%]) also had significantly lower rates of industry funding than systemic (n=207 [37.6%]) and targeted therapy trials (n=129 [76.3%]; P<.001). Targeted therapy trials represented 5 (2%), 38 (10.2%), and 126 (38%) of those published in 1994, 2004, and 2014, respectively (P<.001), and industry-funded 48 (18.9%), 122 (32.6%), and 182 (54.8%) trials, respectively (P<.001). Compared to publication of systemic therapy trial articles, articles investigating local therapy (odds ratio: 0.025 [95% confidence interval: 0.012-0.048]; P<.001) were less likely to be found in high-impact general medical journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer studies evaluating local therapies, such as surgery and radiation, are published in high-impact oncology and medicine literature. Further research and attention are necessary to guide efforts promoting appropriate representation of all oncology studies in high-impact, broad-readership journals.

Differences in Funding Sources of Phase III Oncology Clinical Trials by Treatment Modality and Cancer Type

OBJECTIVES

Given the limited resources available to conduct clinical trials, it is important to understand how trial sponsorship differs among different therapeutic modalities and cancer types and to consider the ramifications of these differences.

METHODS

We searched clinicaltrials.gov for a cross-sectional register of active, phase III, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying treatment-related endpoints such as survival and recurrence for the 24 most prevalent malignancies. We classified the RCTs into 7 categories of therapeutic modality: (1) chemotherapy/other cancer-directed drugs, (2) targeted therapy, (3) surgery, (4) radiation therapy (RT), (5) RT with other modalities, (6) multimodality therapy without RT, and (7) other. RCTs were categorized as being funded by one or more of the following groups: (1) government, (2) hospital/university, (3) industry, and (4) other. χ analysis was performed to detect differences in funding source distribution between modalities and cancer types.

RESULTS

The percentage of multimodality trials (5%) and radiation RCTs (4%) funded by industry was less than that for chemotherapy (32%, P<0.01) or targeted therapy (48%, P<0.01). Trials studying targeted therapy were less likely to have hospital/university funding than any of the other modalities (P<0.01 in each comparison). Trials of chemotherapy were more likely to be funded by industry if they also studied targeted therapy (P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

RCTs studying targeted therapies are more likely to be funded by industry than trials studying multimodality therapy or radiation. The impact of industry funding versus institutional or governmental sources of funding for cancer research is unclear and requires further study.